“…free speech protects you from not being prosecuted by the government.”
The first amendment to the US constitution is what protects you from being prosecuted. Free speech exists where there are no restrictions on what a person says.
My understanding is that “censorship” and “free speech” are antonyms. A person censors to limit free speech. A person practices free speech in the absence of censorship. If you are understanding those terms in some other way, that is fine, but in that case you would have to explain those meanings to me.
“…you don’t understand the concept of free speech.”
Perhaps — or maybe I just understand it differently than you do.
I have never claimed that private individuals, organizations, or institutions lack the right to restrict or censor speech. I have claimed just the opposite:
“…the censor may be someone who has the legal prerogative to do so…”
“There are obviously cases where inhibiting free speech is appropriate.”
I do claim that if a university advertises that it encourages free speech, then denies a paying student the right to speak freely, the university has advertised falsely and violated the terms of its contract with the paying student. If a university advertises that it prohibits conservative speakers and prohibits students from making conservative statements, then a student should not expect to find a conservative perspective on that campus. In that case the university has advertised honestly and is honoring its contract.
If the university accepts public funds then the situation is different. If accepting a student whose loan is co-signed by the government entitles the government to dictate policy (such as title IX requirements) on the grounds that they are “accepting government funding”, then accepting a student whose loan is co-signed by the government should obligate the university to honor its students’ first amendment rights on the same grounds.
I have stated and will state again, private facilities, with the few exceptions that I have described, have the right to determine to whom they will provide a platform. My concern arises when the private facility is responding to threats from a mob of bullies. If the bullies’ threats include illegal acts then the bullies should be taken into custody and prosecuted. If they are allowed to continue their illegal acts and are successful in preventing an event from occurring, then law enforcement has been derelict. If the mob has broken no law but has successfully intimidated a facility, forcing an event to be cancelled when the facility was otherwise willing to allow it to proceed, the issue becomes muddled. I find that situation troubling, but struggle to conceive a solution that does not violate the bullies’ constitutional rights.
My concern is mitigated by the ultimate futility of attempting to suppress ideas through censorship.
